A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy

Written: Written at the end of 1899
Published:
First published in 1924 in the magazine Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya (Proletarian Revolution), No. 8-9.
Published according to a manuscript copied by an unknown hand and looked over by Lenin.
Source:Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
1964,
Moscow,
Volume 4,
pages 255-285.
Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. Cymbala and D. WaltersPublic Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive
(2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
Archive” as your source.

TheEditorial Board of Rabochaya Mysl has published a
Separate Supplement to “Rabochaya Mysl”
(September 1899), for the purpose of “dispelling the mass of
misunderstanding and indefiniteness that exists with regard to the
trend of Rabochaya Mysl (such as our ’renunciation of
politics’).” (From the Editorial Board.) We are very glad that
Rabochaya Mysl is at last raising programmatic questions
which, until now, it sought to ignore, but we emphatically protest
against the statement that the “trend of Rabochaya Mysl
is that of progressive Russian workers” (as the Editorial Board
declares in the cited text). In fact, if the Editorial Board of
Rabochaya Mysl wants to follow the path indicated (so far
only indicated) in that publication, this means that it has
falsely understood the programme elaborated by the founders of Russian
Social-Democracy, a programme that has to-date had the adherence of
all Russian Social-Democrats working in Russia; it means that it is
taking a step backwards with respect to the level of
theoretical and practical development already attained by Russian
Social-Democracy.

TheRabochaya Mysl trend is expounded in the leading article of
the Separate Supplement entitled “Our Reality”
(signed: R. M.), which article we must now analyse in the
greatest detail.

Fromthe very beginning of the article we see that R. M. gives
a false description of “our reality” in general,
and of our working-class movement in particular, that he reveals an
extremely narrow conception of the working-class
movement and a desire to close his eyes to the higher forms of that
movement which have evolved under the leadership of the Russian
Social-Democrats. “Our working-class movement,” says R. M.,
indeed, at the outset of the article, “contains the germs of the
most diverse forms of organisation” ranging from strike associations
to legal societies (permitted by law).

“Andis that all?” asks the reader, in perplexity. Surely
R. M. must have noticed some higher, more advanced forms
of organisation in the working-class movement in Russia! Apparently he is
unwilling to notice them because, on the next page, he repeats his
assertion in a still more emphatic manner: “The tasks of the
movement at the present moment, the real working-class cause of the
Russian workers,” he says, “reduce themselves to the workers’
amelioration of their condition by all possible means,” and yet
the only means enumerated are strike organisations and legal
societies! Thus, the Russian working-class movement reduces
itself, it would seem, to strikes and legal societies! But this is an
absolute untruth! As far back as twenty years ago, the Russian
working-class movement founded a much broader organisation, put forward
much more extensive aims (of which in detail below). The Russian working-
class movement founded such organisations as the
St. Petersburg[3]
and
Kiev[4]
Leagues of Struggle, the Jewish Workers’
League,[5]
and others. R. M. does indeed say that the Jewish working-class
movement has a “specific political character” and is an
exception. But this, again, is an untruth; for if the Jewish Workers’
League were some thing “specific,” it would not have
amalgamated with a number of Russian organisations to form the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The foundation of this Party is
the biggest step taken by the Russian working-class movement in its
fusion with the Russian revolutionary movement. This step shows
clearly that the Russian working-class movement does not reduce
itself to strikes and legal societies. How could it have happened
that the Russian socialists writing in Rabochaya Mysl are
unwilling to recognise this step and to grasp its significance?

Ithappened because R. M. does not understand the relation of the
Russian working-class movement to socialism
and to the revolutionary movement in Russia, because he does not
understand the political aims of the Russian working class. “The
most characteristic index of the trend of our movement,” writes
R. M., “is, of course, the demands put forward by the
workers.” We ask: why are the demands of the Social-Democrats and
Social-Democratic organisations not included among the indices of our
movement? On what grounds does R. M. separate the demands of
the workers from the demands of the Russian Social-Democrats?
R. M. makes this division throughout his article in the same way
as the editors of Rabochaya Mysl make it, in general, in every
issue of their paper. In order to explain this error of Rabochaya
Mysl we must clarify the general question of the relation of
socialism to the working-class movement. At first
socialism and the working-class movement existed separately in all the
European countries. The workers struggled against the capitalists, they
organised strikes and unions, while the socialists stood aside from the
working-class movement, formulated doctrines criticising the contemporary
capitalist, bourgeois system of society and demanding its replacement by
another system, the higher, socialist system. The separation of the
working-class movement and socialism gave rise to weakness and
underdevelopment in each: the theories of the socialists, unfused with the
workers’ struggle, remained nothing more than utopias, good wishes that
had no effect on real life; the working-class movement remained petty,
fragmented, and did not acquire political significance, was not
enlightened by the advanced science of its time. For this reason we see in
all European countries a constantly growing urge to fuse
socialism with the working-class movement in a single
Social-Democratic movement. When this fusion takes place the
class struggle of the workers becomes the conscious struggle of the
proletariat to emancipate itself from exploitation by the propertied
classes, it is evolved into a higher form of the socialist workers’
movement—the independent working-class Social-Democratic
party. By directing socialism towards a fusion with the working-class
movement, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels did their greatest service: they
created a revolutionary theory that explained the necessity for this
fusion and gave socialists
the task of organising the class struggle of the proletariat.

Preciselythis is what happened in Russia. In Russia, too, socialism has
been in existence for a long time, for many decades, standing
aside from the struggle of the workers against the capitalists, aside
from the workers’ strikes, etc. On the one hand, the socialists did not
understand Marx’s theory, they thought it inapplicable to Russia; on the
other, the Russian working-class movement remained in a purely embryonic
form. When the South-Russian Workers’ Union was founded in 1875 and the
North-Russian Workers’ Union in 1878, those workers’ organisations did not
take the road chosen by the Russian socialists; they demanded political
rights for the people, they wanted to wage a struggle for those rights,
but at that time the Russian socialists mistakenly considered the
political struggle a deviation from socialism. However, the Russian
socialists did not hold to their undeveloped, fallacious theory. They went
forward, accepted Marx’s teaching, and evolved a theory of workers’
socialism applicable to Russia—the theory of the Russian
Social-Democrats. The foundation of Russian Social-Democracy was the great
service rendered by the Emancipation of Labour group, Plekhanov, Axelrod,
and their
friends.[1]
Since the foundation of Russian Social-Democracy (1883) the Russian
working-class movement—in each of its broader
manifestations—has been drawing closer to the Russian
Social-Democrats in an effort to merge with them. The founding of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (in the spring of 1898) marked the
biggest step forward towards this fusion. At the present time the
principal task for all Russian socialists and all class-conscious
Russian workers is to strengthen this fusion, consolidate and organise the
Social-Democratic Labour Party. He who does not wish to recognise this
fusion, he who tries to draw some sort of artificial line of demarcation
between the working-class movement and Social-Democracy in Russia renders
no service
but does harm to workers’ socialism and the working-class
movement in Russia.

Tocontinue. “As far as extensive demands, political demands, are
concerned,” writes R. M., “it is only in those of the
St. Petersburg weavers ... in 1897 that we see the first and still weakly
conscious case of our workers putting forward such broad political
demands.” We must again say that this is beyond all doubt untrue.
In publishing such utterances, Editorial Board of Rabochaya Mysl
displays, first, a forgetfulness of the history of the Russian
revolutionary and working-class movement that is unpardonable in a
Social-Democrat, and, secondly, an unpardonably narrow conception of the
workers’ cause. The Russian workers put forward extensive political
demands in the May, 1898, leaflet of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle
and in the newspapers S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok and
Rabochaya Gazeta, the latter having been recognised, in 1898, by
leading Russian Social-Democratic organisations as the official organ of
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Rabochaya Mysl, by
ignoring these facts, is moving backwards and fully justifies the opinion
that it is not representative of advanced workers, but of the lower,
undeveloped strata of the proletariat
(R. M. himself says in his article that this has already been
pointed out to Rabochaya Mysl). The lower strata of the
proletariat do not know the history of the Russian revolutionary movement,
nor does R. M. know it. The lower strata of the proletariat do
not understand the relationship between the working-class movement and
Social-Democracy, nor does R. M. understand that
relationship. Why was it that in the nineties the Russian workers did not
form their special organisations separate and apart from the socialists as
they had done in the seventies? Why did they not put forward their own
political demands separate and apart from the socialists? R. M.
apparently understands this to mean that “the Russian workers are
still little prepared for this” (p. 5 of his article), but this
explanation is only further proof that he has the right to speak only on
behalf of the lower strata of the proletariat. The lower strata of the
workers, during the movement of the nineties, were not conscious of its
political character. Nevertheless,
everyone knows (and R. M. himself speaks of it) that the
working-class movement of the nineties acquired an extensive political
significance. This was due to the fact that the advanced workers, as
always and everywhere, determined the character of the movement, and they
were followed by the working masses because they showed their readiness
and their ability to serve the cause of the working class, because they
proved able to win the full confidence of the masses. Those advanced
workers were Social-Democrats; many of them even took a personal part in
the disputes between the Narodnaya Volya adherents and the
Social-Democrats that typified the transition of the Russian revolutionary
movement from peasant and conspiratorial socialism to working-class
socialism. It can, therefore, be understood why these advanced workers
have not alienated themselves from the socialists and revolutionaries in a
separate organisation. Such an alienation had a meaning and was necessary
at the time when socialism alienated itself from the working-class
movement. Such alienation would have been impossible and meaningless once
the advanced workers had seen before them working-class socialism and the
Social-Democratic organisations. The fusion of the
advanced workers and the Social-Democratic organisations was altogether
natural and inevitable. It was the result of the great historical fact
that in the nineties two profound social movements converged in Russia:
one, a spontaneous movement, a popular movement within the working class,
the other, the movement of social thought in the direction of the theory
of Marx and Engels, towards the theory of Social-Democracy.

Fromthe following it can be seen how extremely narrow is Rabochaya
Mysl’s conception of the political struggle. Speaking of the breadth of
political demands, R. M. states:
“For the workers to conduct such a political struggle consciously and
independently, it is essential that it be waged by the working-class
organisations themselves, that the workers’ political demands should find
support in the workers consciousness of their common political
requirements and the interests of the moment [note well!], that they
should be the demands of the workers’ [craft] organisations themselves,
that they should really be drawn up by them
jointly and also put forward jointly by those working-class organisations
on their own initiative....” It is further explained that the immediate
common political demands of the workers are, for the time being (!!),
still the ten-hour working day and the restoration of holidays abolished
by the law of June 2, 1897.

Andafter this the editors of Rabochaya Mysl are still surprised
that they are accused of renouncing politics! Indeed, is not this
reduction of politics to the struggle of craft unions for individual
reforms the renunciation of politics? Is this not the rejection of the
basic tenet of world Social-Democracy that the Social-Democrats must
strive to organise the class struggle of the proletariat into independent
political working-class parties that fight for democracy as a
means for the proletariat to win political power and organise a
socialist society? With a strangely unbounded thoughtlessness our latest
distorters of Social-Democracy cast overboard everything dear to the
Social-Democrats, everything that gives us the right to regard the
working-class movement as a world-historical movement. It matters little
to them that the long experience of European socialism and European
democracy teaches the lesson that it is essential to strive for the
formation of independent working-class political parties. It matters
little to them that in the course of a long and arduous historical path
the Russian revolutionary movement has evolved the union of socialism and
the working-class movement, the union of the great social and political
ideals and the class struggle of the proletariat. It matters little to
them that the advanced Russian workers have laid the foundation of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Down with all that! Let us
liberate ourselves from a too extensive ideological equipment and from a
too difficult and exacting historical experience—and let
“there remain for the time being” only craft unions (the
possibility of organising which in Russia has not yet been proved at all,
if we leave legal societies out of the reckoning), let these craft unions,
“on their own initiative,” elaborate demands, the demands of the
“moment,” demands for tiny, petty reforms!! What is this, if not the
preachment of a retrograde trend? What, indeed, if not propaganda for the
destruction of socialism!

Andplease note that Rabochaya Mysl does not merely outline the
idea that local organisations should elaborate their own local forms of
struggle and specific motives for agitation, methods of agitation,
etc.—nobody would object to this idea. Russian Social-Democrats have
never laid claim to anything hampering the independence of the workers in
this respect. But Rabochaya Mysl wants to push aside the
great political aims of the Russian proletariat altogether and “for
the time being” confine itself “exclusively” to
“the interests of the moment.” Until now the Russian
Social-Democrats have always wanted to make use of every demand of the
moment and, by agitating for that demand, to organise the proletariat for
the struggle against the autocracy as the immediate objective. Now
Rabochaya Mysl wants to limit the struggle of the
proletariat to a petty struggle for petty demands. R. M.,
knowing very well that he is retreating from the views of the entire
Russian Social-Democracy, makes the following reply to those who accuse
Rabochaya Mysl: It is said that the overthrow of tsarism is the
immediate objective of the Russian working-dais movement. But of which
working-class movement, asks
R. M., “the strike movement? the mutual benefit societies? the
workers’ circles?" (page 5 of the article). To this we reply: Speak
for yourself alone, for your group, for the lower strata of the
proletariat of a given locality which it represents, but do not presume
to speak on behalf of the advanced Russian workers! The representatives
of the lower strata of the proletariat often do not realise that the
struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy can only be conducted by a
revolutionary party. Nor does R. M. know this.The advanced
workers, however, do. The less advanced representatives of the
proletariat often do not know that the Russian working-class movement
is not limited to the strike struggle, to mutual benefit societies and
workers’ circles; that the Russian working-class movement has long been
striving to organise itself into a revolutionary party and has
demonstrated this striving by action. R. M. does not know this,
either. But the advanced Russian workers know it.

R. M.tries to represent his complete misunderstanding of
Social-Democracy as a sort of specific understanding
of “our reality.” Let us look more closely at his ideas on this
subject.

“Asfar as the concept of the autocracy itself is concerned,” writes
R. M., "...we shall not deal with that at length,
assuming that all to whom we speak have the most precise and clear
conception of such things.” We shall soon see that R. M. himself
has an extremely imprecise and unclear conception of such things; but
first let us mention one other circumstance. Are there workers among those
to whom R. M. is speaking? Of course, there are. And if so,
where are they to get a precise and clear conception of the autocracy?
Obviously this requires the broadest and most systematic propaganda of the
ideas of political liberty in general; agitation is required to connect
every individual manifestation of police violence and of oppression by
officialdom with a “precise conception” (in the minds of the
workers) of the autocracy. This, it would seem, is elementary. But if it
is, then can purely local propaganda and agitation against the autocracy
be successful? Is it not absolutely essential to organise such
propaganda and agitation throughout Russia into a single planned activity,
i.e., into the activity of a single party? Why then does R. M.
not indicate that the task of organising systematic propaganda and
agitation against the autocracy is one of the immediate objectives of the
Russian working-class movement? Only because he has the most imprecise and
unclear conception of the tasks of the Russian working-class movement and
of Russian Social-Democracy.

R. M.proceeds to explain that the autocracy is a tremendous
“personal power” (a bureaucracy drilled like soldiers) and a
tremendous “economic power” (financial resources). We shall
not dwell on the “imprecise” aspects of his explanation (and
there is much that is “imprecise” here), but shall pass over directly
to the main point:

“Andso,” R. M. asks of Russian Social-Democracy, “is
it not the overthrow of this personal power and the seizure of this
economic power that the Russian workers are at this very moment advised to
project as the first and immediate task of their present (embryonic)
organisations? (we shall not even mention the revolutionaries, who say
that
this task must be undertaken by the circles of advanced workers).”

Inamazement we rub our eyes and read this monstrous passage over two or
three times. Surely we must be mistaken! But no, we are not. R
M. actually does not know what is meant by the overthrow of the
autocracy. Hard to believe as this is, it is a fact. But after the
confusion of ideas that R. M. has displayed, is it hard to
believe after all?

R. M.confuses the seizure of power by revolutionaries with the
overthrow of the autocracy by revolutionaries.

OldRussian revolutionaries (of the Narodnaya Volya) strove for the
seizure of power by a revolutionary party. They thought that by the
seizure of power the “party would overthrow the personal
power” of the autocracy, i.e., appoint its agents in place of the
government officials, “seize economic power,” i.e., all the
financial means of the state and carry out the social revolution. The
Narodnaya Volya members (the old ones) actually did strive to
“overthrow the personal power and seize the economic power” of
the autocracy, to employ R. M.’s clumsy expression. The Russian
Social-Democrats have decidedly set themselves against this revolutionary
theory. Plekhanov subjected it to trenchant criticism in his essays,
Socialism and the Political Struggle (1883) and Our
Differences (1885), pointing out the task of the Russian
revolutionaries—the foundation of a revolutionary working-class
party whose immediate aim should be the overthrow of the autocracy. What
is meant by the overthrow of the autocracy? To explain this to
R. M. we must answer the question: what is the autocracy? The
autocracy (absolutism, unlimited monarchy) is a form of rule under which
all supreme power is wielded wholly and indivisibly by an absolute
monarch, the tsar. The tsar issues laws, appoints officials, collects and
disburses the national revenues without any participation by the
people in legislation or in control over the administration. The
autocracy, therefore, means the absolute power of government officials and
the police and the absence of rights for the people. The entire people
suffers from this absence of rights, but the propertied classes
(especially the rich landed proprietors and capitalists) exercise a
powerful
influence over the bureaucracy. The working class suffers doubly: both
from the lack of rights to which the entire Russian people is subjected
and from the oppression of the workers by the capitalists, who compel the
government to serve their interests.

Whatis meant by the overthrow of the autocracy? It implies the tsar’s
renunciation of absolute power; the granting to the people of the right to
elect their own representatives for legislation, for supervision over the
actions of the government officials, for supervision over the collection
and disbursement of state revenues. This type of government in which the
people participate in legislation and administration is called the
constitutional form of government (constitution law on the
participation of people’s representatives in legislation and the
administration of the state). Thus, the overthrow of the autocracy means
the replacement of the autocratic form of government by the constitutional
form of government. For the overthrow of the autocracy, therefore, no
“overthrow of personal power or seizure of economic power” is
necessary, but it is necessary to compel the tsarist government to
renounce its unlimited power and convene a Zemsky
Sobor[2]
of representatives of the people for the elaboration of a constitution
(“to win a democratic constitution” [people’s constitution,
drawn up in the interests of the people], as it is put in the draft
programme of the Russian Social-Democrats published in 1885 by the
Emancipation of Labour group).

Whymust the overthrow of the autocracy be the first task of the Russian
working class? Because under the autocracy the working class is not able
to develop its struggle extensively, to gain for itself any stable
positions in either the economic or political fields, to establish sound
mass organisations and unfurl the banner of the social revolution before
the masses of the working people and teach them to struggle for it. The
decisive struggle of the entire working class against the bourgeois class
is possible only under conditions of political liberty, and the final aim
of that struggle is for the proletariat to win political power and
organise a socialist society. The conquest of
political power by an organised proletariat that has gone through a
lengthy schooling in struggle will really be “the overthrow of the
personal power and the seizure of the economic power” of the
bourgeois government; but the Russian Social-Democrats have never put
forward this seizure of power as the immediate task of the
Russian workers. Russian Social-Democrats have always maintained that only
under conditions of political liberty, when there is an extensive mass
struggle, can the Russian working class develop organisations for the
final victory of socialism.

Buthow can the Russian working class overthrow the autocracy? The editors
of Rabochaya Mysl make mock even of the Emancipation of Labour
group which founded Russian Social-Democracy and stated in its programme
that “the struggle against the autocracy is obligatory even for
those workers’ circles that now constitute the germs of the future Russian
working-class party.” It seems ridiculous to Rabochaya Mysl (see
No. 7 and the article under review): the overthrow of the
autocracy—by workers’ circles! In reply, we say to the editors of
Rabochaya Mysl: Whom are you mocking? It is yourselves you are
mocking! The editors of Rabochaya Mysl complain that the Russian
Social-Democrats are not comradely in their polemic with
them. Let the readers judge on whose side the polemic is uncomradely: on
the side of the old Russian Social-Democrats who have set forth their
views clearly and who say out right which views of the “young” they
consider mistaken and why; or on the side of the “young” who
do not name their opponents but jab from behind cover, first at
“the author of a German book on Chernyshevsky” (Plekhanov,
whom, moreover, they groundlessly confuse with certain legal writers),
then at the Emancipation of Labour group, citing with distortions
passages from its programme without putting forward anything like a
definite programme of their own. Yes, we recognise the duty of
comradeship, the duty to support all comrades, the duty to tolerate the
opinions of comrades but as far as we are concerned, the duty
of comradeship derives from our duty to Russian and international
Social-Democracy, and not vice versa. We recognise our comradely
obligations to Rabochaya Mysl, not because its editors are our
comrades; we consider the editors of RabochayaMysl our comrades only because and to the extent that they work in
the ranks of Russian (and, consequently, of international)
Social-Democracy. Therefore, if we are certain that the
“comrades” are moving backwards, away from the
Social-Democratic programme, that the “comrades” are hemming
in and distorting the aims of the working-class movement, we consider it
our duty to give expression to our convictions with a complete
certainty that leaves nothing unsaid!

Wehave just stated that the editors of Rabochaya Mysl distort
the views of the Emancipation of Labour group. Let the reader judge for
himself. “We are prepared not to understand those of our comrades,”
writes R. M., “who consider their programme for ’the
emancipation of labour’ a simple answer to the question: ’Where are we to
get the forces for the struggle against the autocracy?"’ (elsewhere:
“Our revolutionaries regard the workers’ movement as the best means
of overthrowing the autocracy”). Open the draft programme of the Russian
Social-Democrats published by the Emancipation of Labour group in 1885 and
reprinted by
P. B. Axelrod in his booklet, Present Tasks and Tactics of Russian
Social-Democracy (Geneva, 1898), and you will see that the
programme is based on the emancipation of labour from the
oppression of capital, the transfer of all means of production to social
ownership, the seizure of political power by the working class, and the
founding of a revolutionary working-class party. It is clear
that R. M. distorts that programme and is unwilling to
understand it. He has seized upon P. B. Axelrod’s words at the beginning
of his booklet wherein it is stated that the programme of the
Emancipation of Labour group “was an answer” to the
question: Where are we to get the forces for the struggle against
absolutism? It is, however, an historical fact that the
programme of the Emancipation of Labour group was the answer to the
question posed by the Russian revolutionaries and by the Russian
revolutionary movement as a whole. However, because the programme
answered that question, does it mean that the working-class movement was
only the means to an end for the Emancipation of Labour group? Such a
“misunderstanding” on the part of R. M.
merely shows that he is unacquainted with the
generally-known facts of the activities of the Emancipation of Labour group.

Tocontinue. How can the “overthrow of the autocracy” be a
task for workers’ circles? R. M. does not understand. Open the
programme of the Emancipation of Labour group:
“Russian Social-Democrats consider that for the workers’ circles the
chief means of political struggle against the autocracy,” we read,
“is agitation amongst the working class and the further spreading of
socialist ideas and revolutionary organisations amongst the workers. These
organisations, closely bound together in an integral whole and not content
with individual clashes with the government, will lose no time in going
over, at a suitable moment, to a general, decisive offensive against the
government.” These were precisely the tactics followed by the Russian
organisations that established the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party
in the spring of 1898. And they proved that such organisations are a
powerful political force in Russia. If these organisations form one single
party and carry on wide spread agitation against the autocratic
government, using for this purpose all elements of the liberal opposition,
the objective of winning political liberty will undoubtedly be one that
can be attained by such a party. If the editors of Rabochaya Mysl
are “prepared not to understand” this, we are
“prepared” to advise them: learn, gentlemen, for these things
are not in themselves very difficult to understand.

Letus, however, get back to R. M., whom we left arguing about
the struggle against the autocracy. R. M.’s own views on this
subject illustrate still more clearly the new, retrograde, trend of
Rabochaya Mysl.

“Theend of the autocracy is clear,” writes R. M.
"... The struggle against the autocracy is one of the conditions for
the sound development of all vital social elements.” From this the reader
will probably think that the struggle against the autocracy is essential
to the working class. But wait.
R. M. has his own logic and his own terminology. By the word
“struggle,” through the addition of the word “social”
(struggle), he understands something very specific. R. M.
describes the legal opposition of many sections of the Russian
population to the government, and he draws the conclusion: “Indeed,
the struggles for Zemstvo and urban
public self-government, for public schools, and for public aid to the
starving population, etc., constitute a struggle against the autocracy.”
“The necessity to wage a social struggle against the bureaucratic
autocracy is obvious to all class-conscious, progressive sections and
groups of the population. More than this. This social struggle, which
through some strange misunderstanding has not attracted the favourable
attention of many Russian revolutionary writers, is, as we have seen,
being conducted by Russian society; nor did it begin yesterday.”
“The real question is how these separate social strata ... are to
conduct this [note this!] struggle against the autocracy with the maximum
success.... The main question for us is to know how our workers should
conduct this social [!] struggle against the autocracy.”...

Thesearguments of R. M. are again cluttered with an unbelievable
amount of confusion and errors.

First,R. M. confuses legal opposition with the struggle
against the autocracy, with the struggle to overthrow the autocracy. This
confusion, unpardonable in a socialist, results from his employing the
expression “struggle against the autocracy” without an
explanation: this expression may mean (with a reservation) struggle
against the autocracy, but also struggle against individual
measures of the autocracy within the framework of that same autocratic
system.

Secondly,by regarding legal opposition as the social struggle against the
autocracy and affirming that our workers should wage “this social
struggle,” R. M. virtually says that our workers should carry on
legal opposition, not a revolutionary struggle, against the autocracy; in
other words, he sinks into a hideous debasement of Social-Democracy, which
he confuses with the most commonplace and beggarly Russian liberalism.

Thirdly,R. M. declares a flagrant untruth regarding
Russian Social-Democratic writers (true, he prefers making his reproaches
in “all comradeship,” without naming names; but if it is not
Social-Democrats whom he has in mind, his words have no sense), when he
states that they do not pay attention to legal opposition. On the
contrary, the Emancipation of Labour group, and P. B. Axelrod in
particular, as well as the Manifesto of the Russian
Social-DemocraticLabour Party and the pamphlet, The Tasks of the
Russian Social-Democrats (published by the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party and designated by Axelrod as a
commentary to the Manifesto)—all, not only paid
attention to legal opposition, but even elucidated with precision its
relation to Social-Democracy.

Letus clarify the issue. What sort of “struggle against the
autocracy” is being conducted by our Zemstvos, by our liberal
societies in general, and by the liberal press? Are they carrying on a
struggle against the autocracy, for the overthrow of the autocracy?
No, they never have engaged and still do not engage in such a
struggle. This is a struggle that is waged only by the
revolutionaries, who frequently come from the liberal society and rely on
its sympathy. But waging a revolutionary struggle is in no sense the same
thing as sympathising with the revolutionaries and supporting them; the
struggle against the autocracy is in no sense the same thing as legal
opposition to the autocracy. The Russian liberals express their
dissatisfaction with the autocracy only in the form sanctioned by
the autocracy itself, i.e., the form that the autocracy does not consider
dangerous to the autocracy. The grandest showing of liberal opposition has
been nothing more than the petitions of the liberals to the
tsarist government to draw the people into the administration. And each
time the liberals patiently accepted the brutal police rejections of their
petitions; they put up with the lawless and savage repressions with which
the government of gendarmes repaid even legal attempts to make known
their opinion. Simply to present the liberal opposition as a social
struggle against the autocracy is a pure distortion of the issue,
because the Russian liberals have never organised a revolutionary
party to struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy, although they could
have found and can still find for this purpose both the material means and
representatives of Russian liberalism abroad. R. M. not only
distorts the issue, but he drags in the name of the great Russian
socialist N.G. Chernyshevsky."The workers’ allies in this struggle," says
R. M., “are all the advanced strata of Russian society, who
are defending their social interests and institutions, who have a clear
conception of the common good, who ’never forget’ [R. M. quotes
Chernyshevsky] that there is ’a great difference as to whether changes are
brought about by an independent decision of the government or by the
formal demand of society."’ If this comment is applied to all
representatives of the “social struggle” in the way
R. M. understands it, i.e., to all Russian liberals, then it is a
falsification pure and simple. The Russian liberals have never
presented any formal demands to the government, and precisely for this
reason the Russian liberals have never played and now certainly cannot
play an independent revolutionary role. Not “all the
advanced strata of society” can be allies of the working class and
Social-Democracy, but only revolutionary parties founded by members of
that society. In general, the liberals can and should serve merely as
one of the sources of additional forces and means for the
revolutionary working-class party (as P. B. Axelrod so clearly stated in
the above-mentioned pamphlet). N. G. Chernyshevsky ridiculed “the
progressive strata of Russian society” for the very fact that they
did not understand the necessity for formal demands to the government and
indifferently watched revolutionaries from their own midst perish under
the blows of the autocratic government. In this case R. M.’s
quotations from Chernyshevsky are as senseless as his quotations from the
same author, torn piecemeal out of context, in the second article of the
Separate Supplement, which are meant to show that Chernyshevsky
was not a utopian and that Russian Social-Democrats do not appreciate the
full significance of the “great Russian socialist." In his book on
Chernyshevsky (articles in the collection
Sotsial-Demokrat,"[6]
issued as a separate volume in
German) Plekhanov fully appreciated the significance of Chernyshevsky and
explained his attitude to the theory of Marx and Engels. The editors of
Rabochaya Mysl have merely revealed their own inability to give
anything like a connected and comprehensive assessment of Chernyshevsky,
of his strong and weak sides.

“Thereal question” for Russian Social-Democracy is by no means
that of determining how the liberals are to conduct the “social
struggle” (by “social struggle” R. M., as we
have seen, means legal opposition), but how to organise a revolutionary
working-class party devoted to the struggle for the
overthrow of the autocracy, a party that could gain the backing of
all opposition elements in Russia, a party that could
utilise all manifestations of opposition in its revolutionary
struggle. It is precisely a revolutionary working-class party that is
needed for this purpose, because in Russia only the working class can be a
determined and consistent fighter for democracy, because without the
vigorous influence of such a party the liberal elements “could
remain a sluggish, inactive, dormant force” (P. B. Axelrod,
op. cit., p. 23). In saying that our “more advanced strata”
are conducting “a real [!!] social struggle against the
autocracy” (p. 12 of R. M.’s article), that “the main
question for us is how our workers should conduct this social
struggle against the autocracy"—in saying such things,
R. M. is, in fact, retreating completely from
Social-Democracy. We can only offer serious advice to the editors of
Rabochaya Mysl to ponder well the question of where they want to
go and where their real place is: among the revolutionaries, who carry the
banner of the social revolution to the working classes and want to
organise them into a political revolutionary party, or among the liberals,
who are conducting their ’own “social struggle” (i.e., the
legal opposition)? There is nothing at all socialist in the theory of the
“independent social activity” of the workers; in the theory of
“social mutual aid” and of the craft unions that “so
far” confine themselves to the 10-hour working day; in the theory of
the “social struggle” of the Zemstvos, liberal societies, and
others against the autocracy—there is nothing in this theory that
the liberals would not accept! Indeed, the entire programme of
Rabochaya Mysl (to the extent that one can call it a programme)
tends, in essence, to leave the Russian workers undeveloped and split, and
to make them the tail-end of the liberals!

Someof
R. M. ’s
phrases are particularly strange. “The
whole trouble is merely that our revolutionary intelligentsia,” he
proclaims, “mercilessly persecuted by the political police, mistake
the struggle against the political police for the political struggle
against the autocracy.” What sense can there be in such a statement? The
political police are called political because they persecute enemies of
the autocracy and those who struggle against the autocracy. For
this reason, Rabochaya Mysl, so long as its metamorphosis into a
liberal is not completed, fights against the political police as do all
Russian revolutionaries and socialists and all class-conscious
workers. From the fact that the political police mercilessly persecute
socialists and workers, that the autocracy maintains a “well-ordered
organisation,” “competent and resourceful statesmen” (p. 7 of
R. M.’s article), only two conclusions are to be drawn: the
cowardly and wretched liberal will pass judgement that our people in
general and our workers in particular are still ill-prepared for the
struggle and that all hopes must be placed in the “struggle”
of the Zemstvos, the liberal press, etc., since this is the “real
struggle against the autocracy” and not only a struggle against the
political police. The socialist and every class-conscious worker will
conclude that the working-class party must bend all its efforts to the
formation of a “well-ordered organisation,” to the training of
“competent and resourceful revolutionaries” from among the
advanced workers and socialists, people who will raise the working-class
party to the high level of the leading fighter for democracy and who will
be able to win over to its side all opposition elements.

Theeditors of Rabochaya Mysl do not realise that they are standing on
an inclined plane down which they will roll to the first of these two
conclusions!

Or,again: “What amazes us further in these programmes [i.e., in the
programmes of the Social-Democrats],” writes
R. M., “is that they incessantly give first place to the
advantages of workers’ activities in a parliament [non-existent in
Russia], while completely ignoring ... the importance of workers’
participation” in the employers’ legislative assemblies, on factory
boards, and in municipal self-government (p. 15). If the advantages of
parliament are not brought into the forefront, how will the workers learn
about political rights and political liberty? If we keep silent on these
questions—as does Rabochaya Mysl—does this not mean
perpetuating the political ignorance of the lower strata of the workers?
As to workers’ participation in municipal self-government, no
Social-Democrat has ever denied anywhere the advantages and the importance
of the activities of socialist workers in municipal
self-government;
but it is ridiculous to speak of this in Russia, where no open
manifestation of socialism is possible and where firing the workers with
enthusiasm for municipal self-government (even were this possible) would
actually mean distracting advanced workers from the socialist
working-class cause towards liberalism.

“Theattitude of the advanced strata of the workers towards this
[autocratic] government,” says R. M., “is
as understandable as their attitude towards the factory owners.” The
common-sense view of this, therefore, is that the advanced strata of the
workers are no less class-conscious Social-Democrats than the socialists
from among the intelligentsia, so that Rabochaya Mysl’s attempt
to separate the one from the other is absurd and harmful. The Russian
working class, accordingly, has produced the elements necessary for the
formation of an independent working-class political party. But the editors
of Rabochaya Mysl draw from the fact of the political
consciousness of the advanced strata of the workers the conclusion
... that it is necessary to hold these advanced elements back, so as to
keep them marking time! “Which struggle is it most desirable for the
workers to wage?” asks R. M., and he answers:
Desirable is the struggle that is possible, and possible is the struggle
which the workers are “waging at the given moment”!!! It would be
difficult to express more glaringly the senseless and unprincipled
opportunism with which the editors of Rabochaya Mysl, allured by
fashionable “Bernsteinism,” have become infected! What is possible
is desirable, and what we have at the given moment is possible! It is as
though a man setting out on a long and difficult road on which numerous
obstacles and numerous enemies await him were told in answer to his
question “Where shall I go?”:
“It is desirable to go where it is possible to go, and it is possible
to go where you are going at the given moment”! This is the sheerest
nihilism, not revolutionary, however, but opportunist nihilism, manifested
either by anarchists or bourgeois liberals! By “calling upon”
the Russian workers to engage in a “partial” and
“political” struggle (with political struggle understood, not
as the struggle against the autocracy, but only as “the struggle to
improve the condition of all workers”), R. M. is
actually calling upon the Russian
working-class movement and Russian Social-Democracy to take a step
backward, he is actually calling upon the workers to separate from
the Social-Democrats and thus throw over board everything that has been
acquired by European and Russian experience! The workers have no need
for socialists in their struggle to improve their condition, if that is
their only struggle. In all countries there are workers who wage the
struggle for the improvement of their condition, but know nothing of
socialism or are even hostile to it.

“Inconclusion,” writes R. M., “a few
words on our conception of working-class socialism.” After what has been
said above the reader will have no difficulty in imagining the sort of
“conception” it is. It is simply a copy of Bernstein’s
“fashionable” book. Our “young” Social-Democrats
substitute the “independent social and political activity of the
workers” for the class struggle of the proletariat. If we recall how
R. M. understands social
“struggle” and “politics,” it will be clear that this is
a direct return to the “formula” of certain Russian legal
writers. Instead of indicating precisely the aim (and essence) of
socialism—the transfer of the land, factories, etc., in general, of
all the means of production, to the ownership of the whole of society and
the replacement of the capitalist mode of production by production
according to a common plan in the interests of all members of
society—instead of all this, R. M.
indicates first of all the development of craft unions and consumers’
co-operatives, and says only in passing that socialism leads to the
complete socialisation of all the means of production. On the other hand,
he prints in the heaviest type: “Socialism is merely a further and
higher development of the modern community”—a phrase borrowed from
Bernstein, which not only does not explain but even obscures the
significance and substance of socialism. All the liberals and the entire
bourgeoisie undoubtedly favour the “development of the modern
community,” so that they will all rejoice at
R. M.’s declaration. Nevertheless, the
bourgeois are the enemies of socialism. The point is that
“the modern community” has many varied aspects, and of those
who employ this general expression, some have one aspect in view, others
another. And so, instead of
explaining the concept of the class struggle and socialism to the workers,
R. M. offers them only nebulous and misleading phrases. Lastly,
instead of indicating the means modern socialism advances for the
achievement of socialism—the winning of political power by
the organised proletariat—instead of this, R. M. speaks
only of placing production under their (the workers’) social management or
under the management of democratised social power, democratised “by
their (the workers’) active participation on boards examining all kinds of
factory affairs, in courts of arbitration, in all possible assemblies,
commissions, and conferences for the elaboration of labour laws; by the
workers’ participation in public self-government, and, lastly, in the
country’s general representative institution." In this way the editors of
Rabochaya Mysl include in working-class socialism only that which
is to be obtained along the peaceful path and exclude the
revolutionary path. This narrowing-down of socialism and its reduction to
common bourgeois liberalism represents again a tremendous step backwards
as compared with the views of all Russian Social-Democrats and of the
overwhelming majority of European Social-Democrats. The working class
would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully (we have
already stated that this seizure of power can be carried out only by the
organised working class which has passed through the school of the class
struggle), but to renounce the revolutionary seizure of power
would be madness on the part of the proletariat, both from the
theoretical and the practical-political points of view; it would mean
nothing but a disgraceful retreat in face of the bourgeoisie and all other
propertied classes. It is very probable—even most
probable—that the bourgeoisie will not make peaceful concessions to
the proletariat and at the decisive moment will resort to violence for the
defence of its privileges. In that case, no other way will be left to the
proletariat for the achievement of its aim but that of revolution. This is
the reason the programme of “working-class socialism” speaks
of the winning of political power in general without defining the
method, for the choice of method depends on a future which we can not
precisely determine. But, we repeat, to limit the activities of the
proletariat under any circumstances to peaceful
"democratisation” alone is arbitrarily to narrow and vulgarise the
concept of working-class socialism.

Weshall not analyse the other articles in the Separate
Supplement in such great detail. We have spoken of the article on the
tenth anniversary of Chernyshevsky’s death. As to the pro-Bernsteinian
propaganda of the Rabochaya Mysl Editorial Board, which the
enemies of socialism throughout the world, especially the bourgeois
liberals, have seized on, and against which the vast majority of the
German Social-Democrats and class-conscious German workers spoke out so
decisively (at their Hannover Congress)—as to Bernsteinism, this is
not the place to speak of it in detail. We are interested in our
Russian Bernsteinism, and we have shown the limitless confusion
of ideas, the absence of anything like independent views, the tremendous
step backwards as compared with the views of Russian Social-Democracy
which “our” Bernsteinism represents. As far as German
Bernsteinism is concerned, we would rather leave it to the Germans
themselves to handle. We would remark only that Russian Bernsteinism is
infinitely lower than the German. Bernstein, despite his errors, despite
his obvious striving to retrogress both theoretically and politically,
still has sufficient intelligence and sufficient conscientiousness not
to propose changes in the programme of German Social-Democracy
without himself having arrived at any new theory or programme; in the
final and decisive moment, he declared his acceptance of Bebel’s
resolution, a resolution that announced solemnly to the world that German
Social-Democracy would stand by its old programme and its old tactics. And
our Russian Bernsteinians? Without having done a hundredth of what
Bernstein has done, they even go so far as to refuse to recognise the
fact that all Russian Social-Democratic organisations laid the foundations
of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1898, published its
Manifesto, and announced Rabochaya Gazeta to be its
official organ, and that these publications stand by the “old”
programme of the Russian Social-Democrats in its entirety. Our
Bernsteinians do not seem to be aware of the fact that, if they have
rejected the old views and adopted new ones, it is their moral
duty—to Russian Social-Democracy and
to the Russian socialists and workers who devoted all their efforts to the
preparations for, and the founding of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party and who in their majority now fill Russian prisons—that it is
the duty of those who profess the new views, not to confine themselves to
jabbing from holes and corners at “our revolutionaries” in
general, but to announce directly and publicly with whom and with what
they are in disagreement, what new views and what new programme they
advance in place of the old.

Thereis still one other question left for us to examine, probably the
most important one, namely, how such a retrograde trend in Russian
Social-Democracy is to be explained. In our opinion it is not to
be explained solely by the personal qualities of the Rabochaya
Mysl editors or by the influence of the fashionable Bernsteinism
alone. We hold that it is to be explained mainly by the peculiarities in
the historical development of Russian Social-Democracy, which gave rise
to—and had temporarily to give rise to—a narrow
understanding of working-class socialism.

Inthe eighties and at the beginning of the nineties, when
Social-Democrats initiated their practical work in Russia, they were
confronted firstly with the Narodnaya Volya, which charged them with
departing from the political struggle that had been inherited from the
Russian revolutionary movement, and with which the Social-Democrats
carried on a persistent polemic. Secondly, they were confronted with the
Russian liberal circles, which were also dissatisfied with the turn taken
by the revolutionary movement—from the Narodnaya Volya trend to
Social-Democracy. The two fold polemic centred round the question of
politics. In their struggle against the narrow conceptions of the
Narodnaya Volya adherents, who reduced politics to conspiracy-making, the
Social-Democrats could be led to, and did at times, declare themselves
against politics in general (in view of the then prevailing narrow
conception of politics). On the other hand, the Social-Democrats often
heard, in the liberal and radical salons of bourgeois
“society,” regrets that the revolutionaries had abandoned terror;
people who were mortally afraid for their own skins and at a decisive
moment failed to give support to the heroes who struck blows at the
autocracy, these people hypocritically accused
the Social-Democrats of political indifferentism and yearned for the
rebirth of a party that would pull the chestnuts out of the fire for
them. Naturally, the Social-Democrats conceived a hatred for such people
and their phrases, and they turned to the more mundane but more serious
work of propaganda among the factory proletariat. At first it was
inevitable that this work should have a narrow character and should be
embodied in the narrow declarations of some Social-Democrats. This
narrowness, however, did not frighten those Social-Democrats who had not
in the least forgotten the broad historical aims of the Russian
working-class movement. What matters it if the words of the
Social-Democrats sometimes have a narrow meaning when their deeds
cover a broad field. They do not give themselves up to use less
conspiracies, they do not hob-nob with the
Balalaikins[7]
of bourgeois liberalism, but they go to that class which alone is the real
revolutionary class and assist in the development of its forces! They
believed that this narrowness would disappear of its own accord with each
step that broadened Social-Democratic propaganda. And this, to a
considerable degree, is what has happened. From propaganda they began to
go over to widespread agitation. Widespread agitation, naturally, brought
to the forefront a growing number of class-conscious advanced workers;
revolutionary organisations began to take form (the St. Petersburg, Kiev,
and other Leagues of Struggle, the Jewish Workers’ Union). These
organisations naturally tended to merge and, eventually, they succeeded:
they united and laid the foundations of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party. It would seem that the old narrowness would then have been
left without any basis and that it would be completely cast aside. But
things turned out differently: the spread of their agitation brought the
Social-Democrats into contact with the lower, less developed strata of the
proletariat; to attract these strata it was necessary for the agitator to
be able to adapt himself to the lowest level of understanding, he was
taught to put the “demands and interests of the given moment”
in the foreground and to push back the broad ideals of socialism and the
political struggle. The fragmentary, amateur nature of Social-Democratic
work, the extremely weak connections between the study circles in
the different cities, between the Russian Social-Democrats and their
comrades abroad who possessed a profounder knowledge and a richer
revolutionary experience, as well as a wider political horizon, naturally
led to a gross exaggeration of this (absolutely essential) aspect
of Social-Democratic activity, which could bring some individuals to lose
sight of the other aspects, especially since with every reverse the most
developed workers and intellectuals were wrenched from the ranks of the
struggling army, so that sound revolutionary traditions and continuity
could not as yet be evolved. It is in this extreme exaggeration of one
aspect of Social-Democratic work that we see the chief cause of the sad
retreat from the ideals of Russian Social-Democracy. Add to this
enthusiasm over a fashionable book, ignorance of the history of the
Russian revolutionary movement, and a childish claim to originality, and
you have all the elements that go to make up “the retrograde trend
in Russian Social-Democracy.”

Weshall, therefore, have to deal in greater detail with the question of
the relation of the advanced strata of the proletariat to the less
advanced, and the significance of Social-Democratic work among these two
sections.

Thehistory of the working-class movement in all countries shows that the
better-situated strata of the working class respond to the ideas of
socialism, more rapidly and more easily. From among these come, in the
main, the advanced workers that every working-class movement brings to the
fore, those who can win the confidence of the labouring masses, who devote
themselves entirely to the education and organisation of the proletariat,
who accept socialism consciously, and who even elaborate independent
socialist theories. Every viable working-class movement has brought to the
fore such working-class leaders, its own Proudhons, Vaillants, Weitlings,
and Bebels. And our Russian working-class movement promises not to lag
behind the European movement in this respect. At a time when educated
society is losing interest in honest, illegal literature, an impassioned
desire for knowledge and for socialism is growing among the workers, real
heroes are coming to the fore from amongst the workers, who, despite their
wretched living conditions, despite the stultifying penal
servitude of factory labour, possess so much character and will-power that
they study, study, study, and turn them selves into conscious
Social-Democrats—“the working-class intelligentsia.” This
“working-class intelligentsia” already exists in Russia, and
we must make every effort to ensure that its ranks are regularly
reinforced, that its lofty mental requirements are met and that leaders of
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party come from its ranks. The
newspaper that wants to become the organ of all Russian Social-Democrats
must, therefore, be at the level of the advanced workers; not only must it
not lower its level artificially, but, on the contrary, it must raise it
constantly, it must follow up all the tactical, political, and theoretical
problems of world Social-Democracy. Only then will the demands of the
working-class intelligentsia be met, and it itself will take the cause of
the Russian workers and, consequently, the cause of the Russian
revolution, into its own hands.

Afterthe numerically small stratum of advanced workers comes the broad
stratum of average workers. These workers, too, strive ardently for
socialism, participate in workers’ study circles, read socialist
newspapers and books, participate in agitation, and differ from the
preceding stratum only in that they cannot become fully independent
leaders of the Social-Democratic working-class movement. The average
worker will not understand some of the articles in a newspaper that aims
to be the organ of the Party, he will not be able to get a full grasp of
an intricate theoretical or practical problem. This does not at all mean
that the newspaper must lower itself to the level of the mass of its
readers. The newspaper, on the contrary, must raise their level and help
promote advanced workers from the middle stratum of workers. Such workers,
absorbed by local practical work and interested mainly in the
events of the working-class movement and the immediate problems of
agitation, should connect their every act with thoughts of the entire
Russian working-class movement, its historical task, and the ultimate goal
of socialism, so that the newspaper, the mass of whose readers are average
workers, must connect socialism and the political struggle with every
local and narrow question.

Lastly,behind the stratum of average workers comes the mass that
constitutes the lower strata of the proletariat. It is quite possible that
a socialist newspaper will be completely or well-nigh incomprehensible to
them (even in Western Europe the number of Social-Democratic voters is
much larger than the number of readers of Social-Democratic newspapers),
but it would be absurd to conclude from this that the newspaper of the
Social-Democrats should adapt itself to the lowest possible level of the
workers. The only thing that follows from this is that different forms of
agitation and propaganda must be brought to bear on these
strata—pamphlets written in more popular language, oral agitation,
and chiefly—leaflets on local events. The Social-Democrats should
not confine themselves even to this; it is quite possible that the first
steps towards arousing the consciousness of the lower strata of the
workers will have to take the form of legal educational activities. It is
very important for the Party to make use of this activity, guide
it in the direction in which it is most needed, send out legal workers to
plough up virgin fields that can later be planted by Social-Democratic
agitators. Agitation among the lower strata of the workers should, of
course, provide the widest field for the personal qualities of the
agitator and the peculiarities of the locality, the trade concerned,
etc. “Tactics and agitation must not be confused,” says Kautsky in
his book against Bernstein. “Agitational methods must be adapted to
individual and local conditions. Every agitator must be allowed to select
those methods of agitation that he has at his disposal. One agitator may
create the greatest impression by his enthusiasm, another by his biting
sarcasm, a third by his ability to adduce a large number of instances,
etc. While being adapted to the agitator, agitation must also be adapted
to the public. The agitator must speak so that he will be understood; he
must take as a starting-point something well known to his listeners. All
this is self-evident and is not merely applicable to agitation conducted
among the peasantry. One has to talk to cabmen differently than to
sailors, and to sailors differently than to printers. Agitation
must be individualised, but our tactics, our political
activity must be uniform” (S. 2-3). These words from a
leading representative of
Social-Democratic theory contain a superb assessment of agitation as part
of the general activity of the party. These words show how unfounded are
the fears of those who think that the formation of a revolutionary party
conducting a political struggle will interfere with agitation, will push
it into the background and curtail the freedom of the agitators. On the
contrary, only an organised party can carry out widespread agitation,
provide the necessary guidance (and material) for agitators on all
economic and political questions, make use of every local agitational
success for the instruction of all Russian workers, and send agitators to
those places and into that milieu where they can work with the
greatest success. It is only in an organised party that people possessing
the capacities for work as agitators will be able to dedicate themselves
wholly to this task—to the advantage both of agitation and of the
other aspects of Social-Democratic work. From this it can be seen that
whoever forgets political agitation and propaganda on account of the
economic struggle, whoever forgets the necessity of organising the
working-class movement into the struggle of a political party, will, aside
from everything else, deprive himself of even an opportunity of
successfully and steadily attracting the lower strata of the proletariat
to the working-class cause.

However,such an exaggeration of one side of our activities to the
detriment of the others, even the urge to throw overboard the other
aspects, is fraught with still graver consequences for the Russian
working-class movement. The lower strata of the proletariat may even
become demoralised by such calumnies as that the founders of Russian
Social-Democracy only want to use the workers to overthrow the autocracy,
by invitations to confine themselves to the restoration of holidays and to
craft unions, with no concern for the final aims of socialism and the
immediate tasks of the political struggle. Such workers may (and will)
always be ensnared by the bait of any sops offered by the government or
the bourgeoisie. The lower strata of the proletariat, the very undeveloped
workers, might, under the influence of the preaching of Rabochaya
Mysl, fall victim to the bourgeois and profoundly reactionary idea
that the worker cannot and should not interest himself in anything but
increased
wages and the restoration of holidays (“the interests of the
moment”); that the working people can and should conduct the workers’
struggle by their own efforts alone, by their own “private
initiative,” and not attempt to combine it with socialism; that they
should not strive to turn the working-class movement into the essential,
advanced cause of all mankind. We repeat, the most undeveloped workers
might be demoralised by such an idea, but we are confident that the
advanced Russian workers, those who guide the workers’ study circles and
all Social-Democratic activity, those who today fill our prisons and
places of exile—from Archangel Gubernia to Eastern
Siberia—that those workers will reject such a theory with
indignation. To reduce the entire movement to the interests of the moment
means to speculate on the backward condition of the workers, means to
cater to their worst inclinations. It means artificially to break the link
between the working-class movement and socialism, between the fully
defined political strivings of the advanced workers and the spontaneous
manifestations of protest on the part of the masses. Hence, the attempt of
Rabochaya Mysl to introduce a special trend merits particular
attention and calls for a vigorous protest. As long as Rabochaya
Mysl, adapting itself, apparently, to the lower strata of the
proletariat, assiduously avoided the question of the ultimate goal of
socialism and the political struggle, with no declaration of its special
trend, many Social-Democrats only shook their heads, hoping that with the
development and extension of their work the members of the Rabochaya
Mysl group would come to rid themselves of their narrowness. However,
when people who, until now, have performed the useful work of a
preparatory class clutch at fashionable opportunist theories and begin to
deafen the ears of Europe with announcements about intending to put the
whole of Russian Social-Democracy into the preparatory class for many
years (if not for ever), when, in other words, people who have, until now,
been labouring usefully over a barrel of honey begin “in full view
of the public” to pour ladles of tar into it, then it is time for us
to set ourselves decisively against this retrograde trend!

RussianSocial-Democracy, both through its founders, the members of the
Emancipation of Labour group, and
through the Russian Social-Democratic organisations that founded the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, has always recognised the
following two principles: 1) The essence of Social-Democracy is the
organisation of the class struggle of the proletariat for the purpose of
winning political power, of transferring all means of production to
society as a whole, and of replacing capitalist by socialist economy; 2)
the task of Russian Social-Democracy is to organise the Russian
revolutionary working-class party which has as its immediate aim the
overthrow of the autocracy and the winning of political liberty. Whoever
departs from these basic principles (formulated precisely in the programme
of the Emancipation of Labour group and expressed in the Manifesto of
the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) departs from
Social-Democracy.

Notes

[1]
The fusion of Russian socialism with the Russian working-class movement
has been analysed historically in a pamphlet by one of our comrades,
The Red Flag in Russia. A Brief History of the Russian Working-Class
Movement. The pamphlet will shortly be off the
press.[8]
—Lenin

[3]The League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class,
organised by Lenin in the autumn of 1895, united about twenty Marxist
workers’ circles in St. Petersburg. The work of the League was based on
the principles of centralism and strict discipline. The League was headed
by a central group consisting of V. I. Lenin, A. A. Vaneyev,
P. K. Zaporozhets, 0. M. Krzhizhanovsky, N. K. Krupskaya, L. Martov
(Y. 0. Zederbaum), M. A. Silvin, V. V. Starkov, and others. The entire
work of the League, however, was under the direct leadership of five
members of the group headed by Lenin. The League was divided into several
district organisations. Such leading class-conscious workers as
I. V. Babushkin and V. A. Shelgunov connected the groups with the
factories where there were organisers in charge of gathering information
and distributing literature. Workers’ circles were established in the big
factories.

Forthe first time in Russia the League set about introducing socialism
into the working-class movement, effecting a transition from the
propagation of Marxism among small numbers of advanced workers attending
circles to political agitation among broad masses of the proletariat. It
directed the working-class movement and connected the workers’ struggle
for economic demands with the political struggle against tsarism. It
organised a strike in November 1895 at the Thornton Woollen Mill. In the
summer of 1896 the famous St. Petersburg textile workers’ strike,
involving over 30,000 workers, took place under the leadership of the
League. The League issued leaflets and pamphlets for the workers and
prepared the ground for the issuance of the newspaper Rabocheye
Dyelo. Its publications were edited by Lenin.

TheLeague’s influence spread far beyond St. Petersburg, and workers’
circles in Moscow, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav, and other cities, and other parts
of Russia followed its example and united to form Leagues of Struggle.

Latein the night of December 8 (20), 1895, the tsarist government dealt
the League a severe blow by arresting a large number of its leading
members, including Lenin. An issue of Rabocheye Dyelo ready for
the press was seized. The League replied to the arrest of Lenin and the
other members by issuing a leaflet containing political demands in which
reference was made, for the first time, to the existence of the League of
Struggle.

Whilein prison, Lenin continued to guide the League, helped it with his
advice, smuggled coded letters and leaflets out of prison, and wrote the
pamphlet, On Strikes (the original of which has
not yet been found), and the “Draft and Explanation of a Programme of the
Social-Democratic Party.”

TheLeague was significant, as Lenin put it, because it was the first real
beginning of a revolutionary party based on the working-class movement to
guide the class struggle of the proletariat.

[4]The Kiev League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working
Class was formed in March 1897, under the influence of the
St. Petersburg League of Struggle, by a resolution adopted at the Kiev
conference which proposed that all Russian Social-Democratic
organisations call themselves Leagues of Struggle for the Emancipation
of the Working Class, following the example of the St. Petersburg
Social-Democratic organisation. The League united Russian and Polish
Social-Democratic groups and a group of the Polish Socialist Party,
altogether more than 30 members. The Kiev League of Struggle maintained
connections with the St. Petersburg League (through personal contacts
and through acquaintance with the St. Petersburg proclamations and
Lenin’s writings on programmatic questions; Lenin’s “Tasks of the
Russian Social-Democrats” was sent to Kiev in manuscript and was
known to the leaders of Kiev Social-Democratic organisations).

Theactivities of the Kiev League of Struggle began with the May Day
proclamation of 1897 which was widely distributed in the southern cities
of Russia. ’In that year the Kiev League distributed 6,500 copies of
proclamations at more than 25 Kiev factories. That same year a special
group of the League published two issues of Rabochaya Gazeta as
an all-Russian Social-Democratic newspaper. The First Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P., in March 1898, adopted Rabochaya Gazeta as the
Party’s official organ. The League’s illegal literature was distributed
mainly in the South-Russian towns. In addition to its agitational work the
League carried on propaganda in workers’ circles and at factory meetings.

TheKiev League of Struggle carried on active preparations for the
convening of the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Shortly after the
Congress the League was suppressed by the police (the Rabochaya
Gazeta printing-press that had been transferred from Kiev to
Ekaterinoslav and a large quantity of illegal literature was
seized). Arrests were carried out in Kiev and in many big Russian cities.

TheKiev League of Struggle played an important role in the development
and organisation of the working class in Russia for the formation of a
Marxist revolutionary party. The members of the Social-Democratic groups
that remained at liberty soon re established the underground organisation
which took the name of the Kiev Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

[5]The General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland, and
Russia (The Bund) was formed by a founding congress of
Jewish Social-Democratic groups held in Vilno in 1897; it was an
association mainly of semi-proletarian Jewish artisans in the Western
regions of Russia. The Bund joined the R.S.D.L.P. at the First Congress
(1898) “as an autonomous organisation, independent only as far as
questions affecting the Jewish proletariat are concerned ."

TheBund brought nationalism and separatism into the working-class
movement of Russia. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. rejected
its demand that it be recognised as the only representative of the Jewish
proletariat, the Bund left the Party. In 1906 the Bund again entered the
R.S.D.L.P. on the basis of a resolution of the Fourth (Unity) Congress.

Withinthe R.S.D.L.P. the Bundists persistently supported the opportunist
wing of the Party (the “economists,” the Mensheviks, the
liquidators) and struggled against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. The Bund
countered the Bolsheviks’ programmatic demand for the right of nations to
self-determination by a demand for cultural-national autonomy. During the
period of the Stolypin reaction, it adopted a liquidationist position and
was active in forming the August anti-Party bloc. During the First World
War (1914-18) it adopted the position of the social-chauvinists. In 1917
it supported the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government and fought
on the side of the enemies of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In
the years of foreign military intervention and civil war the Bund
leadership joined forces with the counter revolution. At the same time, a
change was taking place among the rank and file of the Bund in favour of
collaboration with Soviet power. In 1921 the Bund decided to dissolve
itself and part of its membership entered the Russian Communist Party
(Bolsheviks) on the basis of the rules of admission.

[8]
The pamphlet referred to is L. Martov’s Red Flag in Russia,
published abroad in October 1900.

[6]Sotsial-Demokrat (The Social-Democrat)—a literary and
political review, published by the Emancipation of Labour group in London
and Geneva between 1890 and 1892. Four issues
appeared. Sotsial-Demokrat played an important part in spreading
Marxist ideas in Russia. G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod, and
V. I. Zasulich were the chief figures associated with its publication.

[7]Balalaikin—a character from M. Y. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s
Modern Idyll; a liberal windbag, adventurer, and liar.